Top subcategories

yesnoWas this document useful for you?Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work
of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

Transcript

OFFICERS’ REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE – 12 JANUARY 2012
Each report for decision on this Agenda shows the Officer responsible, the recommendation
of the Head of Planning and Building Control and in the case of private business the
paragraph(s) of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 under which it is
considered exempt. None of the reports have financial, legal or policy implications save
where indicated.
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEM FOR DECISION
1.
HEMPTON – PF/10/0329 – The erection of 5 two storey dwellings and 2 flats:
site adjacent to 21 Dereham Road for Flagship Housing Group
To give the application further consideration following the receipt of comments
from English Heritage in relation to drainage and archaeological remains.
Background
This application has been subject to consideration by the former Development
Control Committee on three previous occasions.
On 10 June 2010 the Committee resolved to defer the application for design
negotiations to take place and to await the response of the Environment Agency on
the acceptability of soakaways in this location and land contamination.
The application was referred back to Committee on 23 September 2010 for further
consideration to be given to the above issues. No objections were received from the
Environment Agency in relation to soakaways and contamination and no objections
were received from the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager or the
Housing Enabling Officer regarding the amended design. Following objections being
raised by local residents regarding the water-logged nature of the site and impact of
the development on the water table the Building Control Manager was consulted. He
confirmed that the water-logged nature of the site was not an insurmountable
problem and would not prevent the construction of the proposed dwellings on the
site. With regard to the impact on the water table, the Environment Agency had been
consulted on this matter and advised that this was outside the limits of the advice it
could provide. It was therefore resolved that the Head of Planning and Building
Control be authorised to approve the application, subject to no further grounds of
objection being received from the Parish Councils or following expiry of the readvertisement of the amended plans and the satisfactory resolution of the impact of
the development on the water table and subject to the imposition of appropriate
conditions.
Following that decision further investigations were carried out by the applicants in
relation to the impact of the development on the water table. It was agreed with the
applicant’s engineer, the Environment Agency and the District Council’s Building
Control Manager that a condition should be imposed on any approval requiring a
scheme to be submitted and agreed to secure de-watering of the site prior to the
commencement of the development.
However, the application was again referred back to Committee on 14 April 2011
after it had become apparent through further investigation by the applicants that the
use of soakaways on the site would not be an acceptable method for the disposal of
surface water due to the height of the water table. An amended plan regarding an
alternative drainage method of an attenuated surface water system was submitted.
This would be via a pipe laid underground with an outfall to a ditch on adjoining land.
Development Committee
1
12 January 2012
Members will note from the report to the meeting on 14 April 2011 in Appendix 1 that
the amended drainage plan was re-advertised and re-consultations carried out. It will
also be noted from the minutes of that meeting in Appendix 1 that Norfolk
Landscape Archaeology (now known as the Historic Environment Service) objected
to the route proposed for the drainage pipe as it was considered to be inappropriate.
It was requested that an alternative route be sought which did not affect the
archaeological remains on the site of the adjacent former priory. The resolution of the
Committee was to give delegated authority to approve subject to a satisfactory
resolution of the drainage and archaeological issues, no objection being received
from outstanding consultees and imposition of appropriate conditions.
Updates since previous report
Following the meeting on 14 April 2011 a site meeting and discussions took place
between the applicants, their engineers and the Historic Environment Service
regarding the route of the drainage pipe. As a result of this, confirmation was
received on 19 July 2011 from the Historic Environment Service that it had been
concluded that there was no viable alternative to draining eastwards from the
development across the northern part of the site of the Hempton Priory. It was
confirmed that, having considered the feasibility study in detail, the Historic
Environment Service accepted that conclusion, and recommended that a condition
be imposed on any approval for a programme of archaeological work in accordance
with PPS 5. A copy of this response is contained in Appendix 1.
However, prior to this a letter had been received from MJC Associates acting for
Hempton Parish Council (copy contained in Appendix 1). The letter asserted that,
given that the priory site is a designated heritage asset and protected as a Scheduled
Ancient Monument, the proposed development would significantly impact upon the
setting of the designated heritage asset, and that such a material consideration had
not been formally considered during the current planning process. The letter also
expressed the opinion that the siting of the proposed development on an
undesignated area of land containing earthworks associated with the designated
heritage asset should only be undertaken subject to the requirements of PPS5.
A copy of this letter was sent to the Historic Environment Service and the
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager for their comments. Both responses
are contained in Appendix 1. They agree that the proposed development would
have some impact on the setting of both the designated and undesignated parts of
the site. However, neither considers that the impact on the setting would affect the
significance of the asset. The Historic Environment Service have no objection in
principle to the change in setting and the Conservation, Design and Landscape
Manager did not at any stage during his two site visits conclude that the development
would result in a level of harm sufficient to justify refusal. However, he agreed with
the representation on a procedural matter and confirmed that as the development
would be likely to affect the site of a scheduled monument that the Local Planning
Authority was required to consult English Heritage.
A finalised drainage plan was received from the agents, re-advertised on site and reconsultations have taken place, including with English Heritage. The application was
also re-advertised as affecting the setting of a Scheduled Monument.
In addition to the matters of drainage and archaeological impacts, the Environment
Agency provided Officers with a copy of a letter received from Hempton Parish
Council along with their response. The Parish Council wrote to the Environment
Agency on matters which they considered to fall within their remit regarding
Development Committee
2
12 January 2012
contamination, piling, surface water drainage, protected species, Scheduled Ancient
Monuments, sewage and ‘Blackleg’. The Parish Council state that the site is
contaminated with ‘Blackleg’ and that cattle grazing the land have to be vaccinated
against the disease. They also state that the applicants have advised them that they
can mitigate against this by washing any deposits of soil during the build phase into
the main drain at the end of the road some 50 – 70 yards from the site entrance.
The Environment Agency confirmed to the Parish Council that; (i) they have
requested a condition in relation to further investigations into contaminants being
carried out at the site; (ii) that the applicants have confirmed they will not be piling;
(iii) they are satisfied with information submitted in relation to surface water drainage;
(iv) protected species are not within their remit; and (v) that they are not the
competent authority in relation to scheduled ancient monuments and sewage.
However, the Environment Agency advised the Parish Council that they had
concerns over the contamination of this site with Blackleg, and the alleged proposal
of washing any deposits of soil into the main drain. This is an unacceptable method
of disposal of any material, whether contaminated or uncontaminated, and would
constitute an offence under the Environmental Permitting Regulations. The
Environment Agency advised that they would wish to be consulted along with Animal
Health, regarding the removal and correct disposal of any contaminated soil from the
site, which would require the relevant authorisations.
The Environment Agency were then asked to confirm what further information they
would require in order to address their concerns in relation to the alleged
contamination of the site with Blackleg. In response to this they confirmed that this
matter was outside their expertise, and suggested that the advice of Environmental
Health or Animal Health be sought.
In view of this the District Council’s Contaminated Land Officer was consulted. He
discussed the issue with the Environmental Protection Team and has clarified that
Blackleg appears to be a Bacterial disease mainly affecting cattle and sheep. The
bacteria responsible naturally reside in soils and causes infection after ingestion. In
terms of contaminated land, pathogenic organisms lay outside of the legislation and
are not something that we would normally consult on.
However, the Contaminated Land Officer contacted Animal Health and established
that they did not have any concerns over this matter on the basis that the condition
was not a notifiable disease and suggested contacting the local farm veterinary
surgeon for further information. The Contaminated Land Officer was advised that
Blackleg is highly infectious to cattle, sheep and goats, grazing animals being
particularly susceptible. The bacterium that causes infection once present in soils can
remain for many years and cannot be removed or eradicated. There is little evidence
to show that Blackleg is any threat to human health. The advice given suggested that
if a site is infected by this disease it is advised to keep soil disturbance to a minimum,
but this is in order to protect livestock if present. Effective vaccinations for the
disease are available.
In view of the above the Contaminated Land Officer is satisfied that a condition
requiring a site investigation into possible contaminants is appropriate, as originally
requested by the District Council and the Environment Agency. The Environment
Agency has subsequently confirmed that the issue of Blackleg does not fall within
their remit, and that Animal Health are best placed to advise and if they are satisfied
that it does not pose a significant risk it is recommended their advice is followed as
the competent authority.
Development Committee
3
12 January 2012
On the matter of possible disposal of any contaminated soil, confirmation has been
received from the applicants’ Project Manager that he can categorically state that the
Parish Council has not been advised by the applicants or their agents that they can
mitigate against this contamination by washing any deposits of soil into the main
drain. The Project Manager states that he is not aware what they are referring to by
‘main drain’, and there is no public surface water sewer in the vicinity.
He also states that they were advised that cattle on the wider field had been
diagnosed as being infected with Blackleg back in 2004. They had subsequently
consulted with the Health Protection Agency and East of England Animal Health
Regional Office who both advised that there is no known risk to human health from
clostridium chauvoei (the spore that causes Blackleg) and the preventative action for
livestock is vaccine. The agencies advised that there is no good practice guide for
not spreading spores because it is not needed for this clostridium spore, but he
confirms they would of course ensure that groundworkers adhere to standard
practices to avoid spreading soils from the site.
Consultee responses following receipt of finalised drainage plan
Hempton Parish Council – Object to the amended application on the basis that there
has been no substantial amendment made to the application.
Comments in relation to further amended plans: Object, for same reasons as above..
Environmental Health – No further comments, apart from request for condition
regarding investigation into possible contaminants at the site as originally requested.
Environment Agency – Blackleg does not fall within our remit. We feel that Animal
Health are best placed to advise and if they are satisfied that it does not pose a
significant risk, we would recommend that you follow their advice as competent
authority.
Please note that if contaminated soil is to be removed from site as part of the works,
this will need to be removed by a licensed waste carrier and disposed of at a
permitted premises. The applicant should refer to our website for further information
on dealing with contaminated land and which regulations and permissions apply.
Specific information relating to contaminated land can be found at:
http://www.environmentagency.gov.uk/research/planning/121619.aspx and netregs
provides advice on regulations applying to land contamination (www.netregs.gov.uk).
Norfolk Wildlife Trust – No response
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) – This does not affect
the previous comments of the Landscape Section, which were no objection, subject
to measures to safeguard the adjacent County Wildlife Site.
Building Control – No additional comments
Norfolk Landscape Archaeology – The route of the surface water drain shown on the
map is agreed by the Historic Environment Service, the developer and Oxbury &
Company during a site meeting on 23 August 2011. If this route is followed the drain
will cross the possible medieval wall at a point where none of the wall survives above
ground. During the site meeting it was agreed a short stretch of the pipe trench
centred on the middle of the wall line will be hand excavated (rather than machine
dug) to ensure any impact on possible below ground remains associated with the
wall is minimised during the installation of the pipe. This is confirmed by annotation
Development Committee
4
12 January 2012
on the map. This area of hand excavation will form part of a scheme for monitoring
groundworks under archaeological supervision and control, a programme covered by
the condition requested by the Historic Environment Service on 19 July 2011, and a
brief produced by the Historic Environment Service on 31 August 2011. The Historic
Environment Service believes that this revised drainage scheme and associated
archaeological works will ensure the impact on the significance of the heritage asset
is the minimum possible.
Strategic Housing – No objection to amendments proposed. The local housing need
remains virtually unchanged since the previous analysis of applications on the
Housing Register, and currently identifies 45 households from Hempton and the
adjoining Civil parishes (namely Sculthorpe, Dunton and Pudding Norton) who have
a housing need and a local connection with Hempton as required by the Rural
Exceptions Scheme policy. There is a significant local need for affordable housing,
which this proposal for 7 dwellings will go some way to meet. The proposed scheme
meets with all the requirements of Policy H03 and contributes to meeting the Core
Aims and objectives outlined in the Core Strategy and Corporate Plan. Housing
Services therefore strongly supports this application to develop 7 much needed
affordable homes in Hempton.
English Heritage – Have commented on the different aspects of this scheme, which
are summarised as follows:
Impact of the character and appearance of the Hempton Conservation Area:
1. Clarification is required regarding which walls will be in facing bricks and
which will rendered.
2. Raised brick quoins should only be used in association with facing brickwork
3. The facing brickwork should be Flemish bond
4. The treatment of window heads in facing brickwork needs to be clarified
5. Window heads should be formed either with segmental brick arches or with
an expressed reconstituted stone lintel.
6. The decision to combine some ground floor windows and external doors is
questioned. It is suggested they are separated.
7. Glazing in the doors should be reviewed to achieve an historically appropriate
appearance.
8. The porch to Plot 1 has a wide gable which is visually overlarge and would be
better replaced by a simple lean-to porch. If a gable required then should be
narrower and centred on the door.
9. With regard to landscaping the hedge that will screen the close boarded fence
to plot 1 should be maintained at 1.8m to fully screen the fence.
10. Consideration should be given to using bound gravel rather than tarmac to
the hard paving areas for parking and turning.
Impact on the setting of the Scheduled Monument:
The development would create a degree of change to the setting, and although
potentially harmful, this change is not considered to be substantial enough to warrant
refusal on the grounds of impacts upon the setting of the monument. A design of
sufficient quality is sought and the advice above in relation to Conservation Area
would enable the delivery of a more appropriate scheme.
Potential of the development on un-designated archaeology within the development
area:
Development Committee
5
12 January 2012
The proposed development has been evaluated and it is considered to be outside of
the precinct of the St Stephen’s Priory, the remains of which lie to the south and
possibly to the east. No features of medieval date have been revealed.
Archaeological features of possible Romano –British were however identified on site.
These are not considered to be of sufficient significance to require preservation in
situ. Disturbance of these undesignated assets will need to be mitigated through the
development control process. An archaeological condition is recommended.
Potential of the development on un-designated archaeology with the development
area in relation to external drainage:
This land (area to east of proposed development) is outside the protected area of the
monument. It has been assessed by English Heritage’s Designation Department to
have sufficient archaeological potential to be considered for inclusion in the
designated area, as it contains archaeological earth works and structural remains of
possible medieval date and likely to contain buried archaeological remains. This
requires a formal review of the designation, which has not yet taken place but must
be considered in policy terms under PPS5 as significant but undesignated heritage
assets.
Although PPS5 favours the conservation of significant assets, as the area is
undesignated English Heritage are deferring the advice to the County Council’s
Historic Environment Service in regard to the drainage scheme. An archaeology
condition is, however, required for the works that specifically cover the installation of
the drain. To minimise future preservation the pipe should however, be non-porous to
prevent contamination of the archaeological deposits.
Comments following receipt of amended plans:
In respect of the impact of the proposals on the character and appearance of the
Hempton Conservation Area; I have now had the opportunity to examine the revised
drawings, the comments from Richard Pike Associates and the comments from your
Senior Conservation and Design Officer. I note Richard Pike Associates are
concerned that our request for Flemish bond would have a spatial implication though
this could be achieved using ‘snapped headers’ without spatial implications. You may
therefore wish to consider requiring Flemish bond on at least the front elevations, but
I am content for you to take the advice of your Senior Conservation and Design
Officer on this matter and for the application to be determined by your members. In
the light of this advice and, in the event that they are minded to approve the
application, that the detailed aspects of the design are controlled by way of
appropriate conditions.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design)
(summarised) – Comments do not differ from previous.
Following the recent planning tour with Members, the value of good quality
landscaping and surfacing was a recurring theme. Hence, in the event of an approval
being issued, need to ensure perimeter planting sufficient to screen/soften the units
and their associated close boarded boundary fences. Ideally there should also be
some definition in the materials to be used in the rear parking court.
Comments following English Heritage’s initial response:
Firstly, in terms of the impact upon the Scheduled Monument, it is interesting to note
that EH have independently arrived at the same conclusion; i.e. that the proposed
development would involve some change to the setting of the designation but that the
level of harm would not be sufficient to justify a recommendation of refusal.
Development Committee
6
12 January 2012
In terms of the more specific comments made:  The elevations are a little bit sketchy but do appear to provide sufficient detail on
materials. Other details, such as windows/doors, arches and eaves/verges can be
dealt with by condition.
 Raising the brickwork in Flemish Bond would definitely given the scheme a more
refined and historically accurate appearance. What is less clear, however, is
whether specifying this over a normal stretcher bond would be reasonable in this
case.
 Combining some of the GF windows/doors is indeed unfortunate. However, as this
only takes place only on the rear elevation, it is not considered to be sufficiently
injurious to merit revision.
 It is agreed that the doors should not have dropped fanlights to be historically
accurate. However, this can be part of any condition mentioned above.
 It is also agreed that the porch on Unit 1 could be much improved if it just covered
the doorway. As shown, it does look overlarge and unbalanced.
 The importance of the boundary hedging can not be over-stated – it will be
essential to bed the development into its setting. Certainly it will need to provide a
meaningful screen of the potentially suburban boundary fencing.
 The comment about improving the surfacing is very much supported (as
mentioned in my last consultation response of the 3rd November 2011.
Comments following receipt of amended plans in respect of response from English
Heritage:
With reference to the latest amended plans received by the Local Planning Authority
on the 30th November 2011, I can confirm that these satisfactorily address the
previous design concerns expressed in my response of the 28th November 2011.
Hence with the dropped fanlights removed from some of the front doors, the porch
design improved on Unit 1 and the surfacing properly delineated, there are no further
Conservation or Design objections to this scheme.
As stated previously, whilst it would undeniably be preferable for the units to be
raised in Flemish bond, it is questionable whether we can insist upon this, particularly
as the new build next door has been built in stretcher bond.
In the event of the application being approved, conditions are requested covering: •
•
•
Brick, tile and paviour samples to be agreed prior to their use on site (NB: in
respect of the paviours, two contrasting yet complementary samples would
need to be specified for both the driveway and the parking bays).
Door and window details to be agreed prior to their installation
Architectural detailing; i.e. window arches, verge and eaves to be agreed
prior to their formation
With satisfactory compliance, the impact upon existing heritage assets would be
minimised.
Representations received
Two letters of objection and one comment have been received, raising the following
points:
Development Committee
7
12 January 2012
1. Surely it is wrong to destroy Ancient Monuments and build on conservation
land?
2. Alternative site available.
3. Impact on water table.
4. The land is contaminated and disturbance could lead to contaminating the
River Wensum.
5. Building here is likely to inflict un-repairable damage to our future heritage.
Key Policy Issues
The key issues for consideration at this time are the matters of design raised by
English Heritage, the acceptability of the drainage route and impacts upon
archaeology in accordance with policies EN4, EN8 and EN13 of the adopted North
Norfolk Core Strategy.
Other material considerations include ministerial advice from the Rt Hon Greg Clark
MP – Minister for Decentralisation concerning Planning for Growth dated 23 March
2011.
The ministerial advice states, amongst other things, that:
When deciding whether to grant planning permission, local planning authorities
should support enterprise and facilitate housing, economic and other forms of
sustainable development. Where relevant - and consistent with their statutory
obligations - they should therefore:
(i) consider fully the importance of national planning policies aimed at fostering
economic growth and employment, given the need to ensure a return to robust
growth after the recent recession
(ii) take into account the need to maintain a flexible and responsive supply of land for
key sectors, including housing
(iii) consider the range of likely economic, environmental and social benefits of
proposals; including long term or indirect benefits such as increased consumer
choice, more viable communities and more robust local economies (which may,
where relevant, include matters such as job creation and business productivity)
(iv) be sensitive to the fact that local economies are subject to change and so take a
positive approach to development where new economic data suggest that prior
assessments of needs are no longer up-to-date
(v) ensure that they do not impose unnecessary burdens on development.
In determining planning applications, local planning authorities are obliged to have
regard to all relevant considerations. They should ensure that they give appropriate
weight to the need to support economic recovery, that applications that secure
sustainable growth are treated favourably (consistent with policy in PPS4), and that
they can give clear reasons for their decisions.
The Committee is referred to the ministerial advice in full. It constitutes a material
consideration to which appropriate weight should be afforded. It is a matter for the
Committee to decide what weight to give this statement.
In July 2011, the Department for Communities and Local Government issued Draft
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) for consultation which, amongst other
things, places greater emphasis towards securing sustainable economic growth.
Whilst the NPPF is not yet adopted Government policy it does give a clear indication
of the Government’s current intent. Again it is a matter for the Committee to decide
what weight to afford this document as a material planning consideration given that it
Development Committee
8
12 January 2012
is only in draft at this stage and, following the consultation process, it may be revised
or altered in light of that consultation process. It is considered that the NPPF is a
matter which does attract some weight at this stage given that it is consistent with the
previous statements of Government policy.
Appraisal
The Committee will note that this application has been considered by the former
Committee on three occasions, and apart from deferral at the first meeting to
negotiate on matters of design the Committee has given delegated authority to
approve subject to the resolution of matters of drainage, impacts on water table and
archaeological impacts on two further occasions.
The application is being referred back to Committee following the receipt of
comments from English Heritage on design grounds, impacts on the setting of the
designated and undesignated assets and the drainage route. The matter of the land
being contaminated with ‘Blackleg’ also requires further consideration. All other
matters have already been addressed at previous Committee meetings.
With regard to the comments from English Heritage in relation to design, the
applicants have given this matter further consideration. Following the advice of
Officers, including the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager, the applicants
have provided further clarification on the plans of which walls are to rendered and
brickwork, as well as the use of brick quoins and window head details. The views of
English Heritage regarding the combining of ground floor windows with external
doors have been considered, but this would be to the rear of the properties only and
not in a prominent position in the Conservation Area. With the erection of the screen
fencing proposed, these fenestration details would not be visible in the wider area.
This is not therefore considered to be of sufficient detriment to warrant a further
revision. The amended plans show a revision to the glazing in the doors, as well as a
reduction in the size of the porch to dwelling 1 and change in design to a more simple
lean-to roof, as suggested by English Heritage. The point raised by English Heritage
regarding the height of the hedging to the site boundaries would be included as part
of any landscaping conditions. With regard to the parking and turning areas, whilst
bound gravel is not being proposed the applicants have revised the plans to include
two different paviour colours to differentiate between parking and turning areas.
The only other suggestion made by English Heritage that the applicants have not
revised concerns the use of Flemish Bond brickwork. The Committee will note the
comments of the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager on this matter, who
confirms that whilst this would be preferable it is a questionable as to whether this
can be insisted upon, given that the new build dwelling adjacent is constructed using
stretcher bond.
The Committee will note that following the receipt of amended plans in relation to
design and materials that English Heritage are not raising an objection; they are
satisfied for the Committee to take the advice of the Conservation, Design and
Landscape Manager, subject to appropriate conditions. In view of the comments
already provided by the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager it is not
considered that this could be insisted upon on this case. Other matters in relation to
materials can be addressed by way of conditions to ensure a satisfactory
development in terms of its appearance.
With regard to the drainage plans and the impact upon archaeology and designated
and undesignated sites, the Committee will note that no objections have been
received from the expert consultees. The Historic Environment Service,
Development Committee
9
12 January 2012
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager and English Heritage all have no
objection subject to an archaeological condition being imposed on any approval. It is
considered that the applicants have demonstrated through their investigations and
discussions with the Historic Environment Service that the route proposed for the
drain is the most appropriate and can be appropriately mitigated.
The Committee will also note that English Heritage do not consider the change in the
setting of the designated monument to be substantial enough to warrant refusal, nor
do they consider the archaeological features on the un-designated area to be of
sufficient significance to require preservation in situ. English Heritage have also
deferred to the advice of the Historic Environment Service in relation to the drainage
proposal.
With regard to the concerns raised in relation to the alleged contamination of the site
with Blackleg; the Contaminated Land Officer has consulted with Animal Health as
suggested by the Environment Agency. No concerns have been raised by Animal
Health and both the Contaminated Land Officer and Environment Agency are
satisfied with this. A condition requiring a site investigation into possible
contaminants is required on any approval to address contamination on the site. If
contaminated soil is to be removed from site as part of the works, this will need to be
removed by a licensed waste carrier and disposed of at a permitted premises.
Further information on this matter is provided by the Environment Agency on their
website and information on any permissions required. This information would be
included as an advisory note to the applicants on any approval.
In summary, taking these issues into account it is considered that the matters of
design raised by English Heritage have now been satisfactorily addressed and can
be conditioned appropriately. The alternative drainage method proposed is also
acceptable, given that mitigation can be put in place to minimise the impact upon the
archaeological remains. It has been established that Blackleg does not pose a
significant risk to human health and contamination can be dealt with under an
appropriate site investigation condition. Furthermore, English Heritage has confirmed
that the change in the setting of the designated and undesignated assets as a result
of the proposal would not be substantial enough to warrant a refusal.
In relation to these matters the proposal is therefore considered to be acceptable and
in accordance with Development Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
(Source: Jo Medler, Senior Planning Officer ext 6128)
Development Committee
10
12 January 2012
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEM FOR DECISION
2.
WEYBOURNE – PF/09/1270 – Installation of buried electrical cable system in
connection with off-shore wind farm; Land from Weybourne to Great Ryburgh
for Dudgeon Offshore Wind Ltd
To give the application further consideration following the receipt of the appeal
decision on the Little Dunham sub station, and to consider the applicants’ response
to issues raised by the Committee on 14 July 2011.
Background
The Committee last considered this application at the meeting on 14 July 2011 when
it was resolved to defer determination of the application for the following reasons:
1. To await the outcome of the inquiry in respect of the Little Dunham substation.
2. To seek the applicants’ views as to whether they are willing to delete stage 2
from the current application.
3. To request the applicants to reconsider the precise route at Westwood Farm,
Great Ryburgh.
4. To seek further information on the short-term impact on tourism and
agriculture.
5. To seek the applicants’ view as to the use of horizontal directional drilling
across the Rivers Stiffkey and Wensum.
6. To seek further information in respect of soil heating.
Copies of the report to that meeting and the minutes are attached as Appendix 2.
Examination of Issues
The following are updates on the issues raised by the Committee:
Issue 1: Outcome of the inquiry in respect of the Little Dunham sub-station.
A decision has now been issued by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local
Government and the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change dismissing
the appeal for the sub-station at Little Dunham. The Secretaries of State considered
a report from the Planning Inspector who recommended that the appeal be
dismissed. A full copy of the Planning Inspector’s report and the Secretaries of
State’s decision is contained in Appendix 2.
The overall conclusion arrived at by the Secretaries of State was as follows:
“They consider that a substation is required and is vital to the utilisation and
distribution of off-shore wind energy. In accordance with national policy set
out in PPS22, the Secretaries of State have attached significant weight to the
wider environmental and economic benefits of the proposals. However, they
conclude that there would be visual impacts on the landscape adjacent to
Little Dunham that would result in a significant change in the perception of the
village which would be damaging to its hitherto rural ambience along with the
intrinsic beauty of the landscape. In this respect they conclude that there is
conflict with (Breckland District Council) Core Strategy policies CP 11 and DC
15. The Secretaries of State are satisfied that the harm from the visual impact
on the landscape is such that planning permission should be withheld at this
particular location. Furthermore, they consider that the possibility of locating
an acceptable site elsewhere – as to which, as the Inspector indicated, there
is scope for further assessment – also tells against the acceptance of the
environmental consequences that would be associated with this particular
development at Little Dunham.
Development Committee
11
12 January 2012
Having weighed up all the relevant considerations, the Secretaries of State
conclude that the factors which weigh in favour of the proposed development
do not overcome the conflicts with the development plan which they have
identified.
They do not consider that there are any material considerations of sufficient
weight to justify granting planning permission.”
Following the dismissal of the appeal for the sub-station the applicants have
confirmed that they are continuing to work with Breckland District Council and others
to agree the best location for the sub-station within the Little Dunham/Necton area.
The applicants stress that the cable route application through North Norfolk will
remain unaffected by the events in Breckland, and unchanged irrespective of
whether the sub-station is located near Little Dunham or Necton.
It is accepted by Officers that this would be the case. It would be the route through
the Breckland District that may be subject to change. If the sub-station were to be
located well outside the Little Dunham/ Necton area then this could affect the cable
route in this District. If this did happen then a further planning application for the route
would be required.
However, based on the information submitted by the applicants the District Council is
required to determine the application as submitted and as requested by the
applicants.
In the light of this further information has been received from the applicants in
response to points 2 to 6 of the Committee’s resolution above. A copy of this
response is contained in full in Appendix 2. A summary of the applicants’ response
is set out under the following issues:Issue 2: To seek the applicants’ views as to whether they are willing to delete stage 2
from the current application.
Applicants’ Response
There should be no misunderstanding of the intention to develop Stage 2, if offshore
consent is granted in due course. If Stage 2 were removed from the application a
misleading impression could be given to the local communities, the Council and to all
other stakeholders. Whilst the timing is currently uncertain discussions with The
Crown Estate are continuing. The delay in further licences for the area is related to a
regionally sensitive offshore issue and the expected resolution of this matter later this
year should allow programmes for both Stage 1 and Stage 2 to move forward.
The inclusion of both stages allows the maximum impact scenario to be considered
and mitigation and management to be planned in a holistic manner to minimise the
overall impact of the development on the local community.
The impacts on all stakeholders will be minimised if the work programmes for both
stages can be coordinated. If the onshore elements of Stage 2 were subject to a new
and separate planning application it is highly unlikely that it would be possible to link
the onshore construction of the two stages.
The agent also clarifies that the removal of Stage 2 from the application will not
reduce the width of the cable working corridor from 40m.
Development Committee
12
12 January 2012
Officers’ Comments
It is agreed that the inclusion of both Stages 1 and 2 allow for the maximum impact to
be considered, so that appropriate mitigation and management can be addressed to
minimise the overall impact of the development. None of the technical consultees has
objected to the application being considered on this basis.
If only Stage 1 were to go ahead then the width of the working corridor would remain
at the proposed 40m. This is because of the trench widths required, the distances
required between the trenches, and the requirements for vehicular access, sub-soil
and topsoil storage. In certain locations, such as hedge crossing points and for
environmental reasons, the working corridor would be reduced to 20m in width.
Given that the width of the working corridor would remain the same regardless of
whether only one or both stages were to go ahead it is not considered that the
removal of Stage 2 would reduce the overall impacts upon the landscape and local
community compared with those already considered.
Issue 3: To request the applicants to reconsider the precise route at Westwood Farm,
Great Ryburgh.
Applicants’ Response
Minor changes to the route planned through the land Mr Boeson farms are shown on
the amended plans. These changes were made at the request of the landowner, Mr
Cook, to help minimise the impacts on his tenant, Mr Boeson. As with all landowner
requests it was considered against stringent environmental and technical criteria; in
this case a route change was considered appropriate.
The amended route shown is considered by the applicants to represent the lowest
impact route, following existing field boundaries where possible. This has the
advantage of reducing the areas of farmland that might become temporarily isolated
during construction, although such an impact is covered under the crop loss
compensation process.
The applicants have advised that following the concerns raised by Mr Boeson at the
last Committee meeting they have contacted him again to try and review their
proposal with him. Whilst Mr Boeson declined to meet with the applicants he
appointed an agent to liaise with the applicants and a meeting took place on 31
August 2011. The route selection was discussed and fully explored and agreed that
the optimum route had been adopted.
The applicants also advise that constructive discussions have been held and are
continuing with the agent acting for Mr and Mrs Runciman of Croxton Farm, in terms
of avoiding impacts on their potato crops amongst other matters. Discussions are still
ongoing with the agent for Kelling Estate.
The applicants state that they will continue to liaise with all landowners and tenants
to ensure minimal disruption is caused to their farming operations and to ensure that
they are fully compensated for any direct or indirect loss of crops both during and
following the proposed construction works.
The applicants also clarify and reaffirm the compensation payments available for the
leasing of the land in which the cables are laid and for crop losses if required. The
lease payments go to the relevant landowner. Compensation for any crop losses are
typically via the landowner and passed onto the tenant. However, the applicants have
advised that they would be happy to directly contract with tenant farmers regarding
compensation payments should it be considered helpful for particular landowners
and tenants.
Development Committee
13
12 January 2012
Officers’ Comments
It is considered that the applicants have demonstrated careful consideration of route
selection and, as a result of a request from the landowner at Great Ryburgh, Mr
Cook, to help minimise the impacts on his tenant, Mr Boeson, have already made
minor changes to the route through Westwood Farm.
The applicants considered the further concerns raised by Mr Boeson, but consider
the amended route in this location to have the lowest impact. None of the technical
consultees has raised an objection to the amended route, which reinforces its
acceptability.
The ongoing discussions that the applicants are having with landowners and tenant
farmers are welcomed. In the case of Westwood Farm at Great Ryburgh it has now
been suggested that the agent acting for Mr Boeson agrees that the best route has
been selected. Further discussions with Mr and Mrs Runciman and the Kelling Estate
are continuing. It would appear that progress is being made in relation to this matter
and that their concerns and objections raised are to some extent being allayed.
It is considered that the further clarification on the compensation payments is helpful,
but this is a civil matter between the landowner/tenant and the applicants and is not a
planning matter.
It is not considered that there would be justification in planning terms for further
amendments to be sought.
Issue 4: To seek further information on the short-term impact on tourism and
agriculture.
Applicants’ Response
Following reinstatement of the land above the cable system it is unlikely that the
presence of the cable system will be noticed, as it is no different from how existing
infrastructure is buried and hidden from view. It is highlighted that less than a year
after the construction of the cabling for the Sheringham Shoal project that it is
doubtful that it could be identified where the cable runs due to the effectiveness of
reinstatement works.
It is accepted that during construction (approximately 2 years, limited to only a few
months at each location) there will be a temporary localised impact on the landscape,
traffic and communities. Some minor roads may be closed for a short period but main
roads will remain unaffected as HDD techniques will be used. Where necessary road
crossings could also be undertaken at night to further reduce any potential disruption.
The applicants refer to the advanced techniques and machinery which are more
efficient, quicker and less damaging to the environment. It is also stated that
environmental laws, planning policy and health and safety laws have considerably
increased the requirements for the implementation of best practice techniques. Such
projects are well managed, strictly controlled and enforced by stringent measures.
The short term impact of the project on the economy will be minor, temporary and
primarily in the form of disturbance to traffic and communities. This can be managed
and controlled by the development of acceptable timing, location and duration of the
activities to ensure that disturbance is kept to a minimum and normality restored as
soon as practically possible.
Development Committee
14
12 January 2012
In terms of economic impacts it is estimated that the project will require around 100
workers for the onshore cable construction works. Whilst some will be hired locally,
the others (technical specialists) will require accommodation locally, providing a
significant boost to local B&B’s and hotels. These construction workers and
managers will also utilise local stores, restaurants and retail facilities, providing direct
income to local businesses over the two year construction period.
It is likely that the project will engage local businesses for the supply of materials,
such as aggregates (e.g. sand, concrete, hardcore), fencing, site establishment
(welfare facilities), maintenance, machinery hire, as well as employing local firms
such as environmental survey contractors, soil specialists, land drainage contractors
and transport/haulage companies. Whilst difficult to quantify and guarantee the exact
nature of these benefits, these locally sourced contracts and purchases will also
provide a significant boost to the local economy running to several millions of pounds
based on feedback from the recent Sheringham Shoal project.
In the longer term the cable system will have no adverse impact on the daily lives or
economy of North Norfolk. The wind farm will generate significant economic
opportunities in the development, construction and maintenance of the wind farm and
associated assets. The maintenance costs of the project are expected to be around
£40m per year.
The 2009 – 2010 Wells Harbour Commissioners Annual Report show over £1 million
investment by Scira, the project owners of the Sheringham Shoal project, with
investment continuing. An article is included in the applicants’ full response in
Appendix .. from the Wells Harbour website. The applicants consider that Members
should be encouraged by the potential benefits to the local community and that Stage
1 of the Dudgeon project alone has almost twice the generation capacity of the
Sheringham Shoal project and greater infrastructure requirements.
Officers’ Comments
It is agreed that once reinstatement of the land above the cable has been completed
the visual impact would be minimal. It is also agreed that techniques and machinery
for such work are advanced, with strict controls in place to ensure that any impacts
upon the environment would be appropriately mitigated against and remediation
measures imposed.
Clearly there would be some impact visually on the landscape as well as to traffic
and local communities, which is accepted by the applicants. However, given that the
works required for the construction of the cable route are temporary the impacts
would also be temporary.
Concerns were previously raised by the Committee on this matter together with
impacts on tourism and agriculture which are important areas of income in North
Norfolk. However, the impacts on agriculture would be addressed through
compensation payments should any losses occur to landowners and tenants, which
has been explained under Issue 3 of this report and explained in further detail by the
applicants under point 2 of their letter dated 18 November 2011 in Appendix 2.
The impact on traffic has also been considered and the applicants have explained
the position that there may be some road closures for short periods of time and on a
temporary basis. If any road closures are required the applicants have explained that
these would be on minor roads. It is suggested that most traffic, particularly tourist
traffic, would be using the main routes rather than minor roads. The main roads
would be unaffected as HDD would be used at these crossing points. The applicants
Development Committee
15
12 January 2012
have also suggested night-time working at road crossings to further reduce any
potential disruption. This is a matter that requires consideration by the County
Council as Highway Authority through a Traffic Management Plan. It should be noted
that the Highway Authority has raised no objection to the application subject to a
condition being imposed requiring the submission of a Traffic Management Plan. The
County Council Public Rights of Way Officer has also raised no objection.
The applicants have explained that if the application were approved this could benefit
the local economy by creating employment locally, using local accommodation and
facilities as well as local businesses for the supply of materials and equipment. It
could also bring investment to the area as demonstrated by the Sheringham Shoal
project and the 2009 – 2010 Wells Harbour Commissioners Annual Report.
The Committee will note the comprehensive analysis of the impact of the energy
industry on the economy of North Norfolk prepared by the Economic and Tourism
Development Manager contained in Appendix 2, following receipt of the additional
information submitted by the applicants. The analysis considers the impact of
offshore wind energy developments in particular the North Norfolk economy and the
significance of the current project.
In summary, the Economic and Tourism Development Manager has explained how
the growing importance of the energy industry has elevated the coastal and maritime
area of North Norfolk to become one of the most important investor development
areas in the region, and that the North Norfolk coastline is now one of the region’s
largest markets for offshore wind turbine development, and also a major prospect for
future carbon capture and storage.
Wind energy development off the North Norfolk coastline is expected to generate
positive economic effects for North Norfolk and the wider area over the next forty plus
years.
Given the likely total project investment cost to be applied to North Sea wind energy
development, the effect on the local economy is considered to be beneficial. Positive
effect will not only arise through direct employment opportunities but also via
construction, supply chain and maintenance activities.
As a result of this activity it is likely that there will be local employment generated as an
indirect result of the construction of North Sea wind farm. Indirect employment will
include supply chain benefits for local businesses, sub-contracted work relating to the
transportation of labour and materials, and expenditure by construction employees in
the local economy. A further benefit will arise in terms of wider ‘up-skilling’ of local
people and the general aspiration of existing businesses to be part of the global effect of
this industry. An example is the positive effect on the growth of the Wells economy as
direct result of the Sheringham Shoal wind farm development. Wells-next-the-Sea and
its harbour already shows gains both in terms of employment and localised business
engagement. It is expected that this relatively small wind farm will attract further
economic gains through supply chain and cluster development.
The Economic Development Unit recognises this application as being one of the
most fundamental prerequisites for kick-starting the emerging offshore wind energy
industry in Norfolk. The Economic Development Unit fully supports this planning
application recognising the benefits that underground cabling can bring to both the
environment and the tourism economy.
Development Committee
16
12 January 2012
In summary whilst it is considered that there would be temporary impacts on the
landscape and the road network, there would also be benefits by generating
employment and boosting the local economy which could have longer lasting impacts
and are a material consideration in the determination of this application.
Issue 5: To seek the applicants’ view as to the use of horizontal directional drilling
across the Rivers Stiffkey and Wensum.
Applicants’ Response
The applicants have agreed to extend the HDD at the River Wensum in Great
Ryburgh to further reduce impacts on the meadow.
With regard to the River Stiffkey the position has not changed. The point of crossing
is approximately 1m wide, and is not a designated River. The Stiffkey Valley SSSI
area is located over 11.5km to the north of the crossing point.
However, as a precaution and part of the agreed ecological mitigation strategy a full
ecological watercourse and protected species survey is scheduled to be undertaken
during the pre-construction surveys. HDD techniques may still be employed if
appropriate to safeguard any sensitive species identified. In the event that there are
no protected species or other sensitivities identified in agreement with Natural
England and North Norfolk District Council, open cut trenching will be employed to
reduce the direction of the crossing and minimise disturbance at this location.
Officers’ Comments
The applicants’ agreement to extend the HDD at Great Ryburgh is welcomed and
supported. A meeting between Officers and the applicants has taken place on site to
discuss the amended plan submitted, and clarify the length of the extension. It is
proposed to extend the HDD at this location by 63m, making a total length of 268m.
This amendment has been re-advertised on site and the relevant consultees
including Ryburgh Parish Council and the District Council’s Conservation, Design
and Landscape Manager re-consulted. The Conservation, Design and Landscape
Manager advised that Natural England and the Environment Agency also needed to
be re-consulted on this amendment.
Whilst Ryburgh Parish Council maintain their objections for the reasons previously
stated, the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager and Environment Agency
have raised no objection to the proposed extension to the HDD in this location.
Natural England has confirmed its support.
The Conservation, Design and
Landscape Manager advises that the extension would conserve in situ an additional
section of grazing marsh and the dyke which was formerly the main river channel. It
is considered that this would also allow the appropriate siting of the drilling
compounds within the flood plain.
As will be noted with regard to HDD at the River Stiffkey, the applicants’ position has
not changed. It was explained in the Committee report of 14 July 2011 that whilst the
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager originally had concerns over the
proposal to open trench at this point further discussions took place with the
applicants and an Ecological Mitigation Summary was received. This satisfied the
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager that open trenching was acceptable
at this point as it would result in less disturbance to the water meadows than if
directional drilling were to be used. This view has not changed. However, if following
pre-construction surveys it is deemed necessary to HDD at the River Stiffkey to
safeguard any sensitive species, there would also be no objection from the
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager. No technical consultees have
objected to this.
Development Committee
17
12 January 2012
Issue 6: To seek further information in respect of soil heating.
Applicants’ Response
The applicants have provided further information on soil heating and possible effects
on crop yields, as well as the impact on the work programme limiting the removal of
soil in dry conditions.
The applicants reiterate that heat dissipation from buried cables represents a loss of
energy from the electrical system which equates to loss of revenue for the project.
The prime focus of the design of any electrical system is to minimise these ‘losses’
(i.e. heat) and a variety of engineering options are available to achieve this for
different circumstances.
The applicants explain that as the 45km cable route is made up of 76 sections, with
an average length of 700m there is sufficient flexibility to vary the design of each
section to eliminate any predicted adverse thermal impact that may be identified
during the detailed design. They also advise that the design criteria of the cables will
ensure that the first 500mm of topsoil will remain virtually unaffected by any heat
generated even when operating under peak design conditions for long periods in
summer conditions. The applicants consider that crop yields would be unaffected
under all reasonably foreseeable conditions, but in the unlikely event that there is a
negative impact then the compensation payment mechanisms already referred to in
this report would be applied.
The cable system design will be so as to ensure that the thermal limits for the cables
are not exceeded at any point along the cable route. These limits are only ever
expected to be approached in rare and exceptional circumstances and even then for
a short period of time. A Distributed Temperature Sensor (DTS) system will be used
on the project to monitor the cable system temperature to ensure that cable
temperatures are maintained within acceptable limits.
It has been suggested that the buried cables will operate continually at 90°C. This is
incorrect; the 90°C figure is the maximum temperature at which the core could
theoretically operate without degradation of the cables electrical insulation and risk of
cable failure, i.e. it is the guarantee level from the cable manufacturer. It is not in the
project’s best interests to design and export connection such that the cables run at
these ‘hot’ temperatures, as has been suggested, due to the increased electrical
losses.
Using the standard industry techniques mentioned above the cables will be designed
to ensure that they run ‘cold’, under predicted loading patterns, to minimise electrical
losses. To clarify the terms ‘hot’ and ‘cold’ have been used here and previously as
relative engineering terms, and are not meant as they are commonly used, in
absolute terms. The electrical insulation and mechanical cable protection used
around each cable core will also limit the amount of heat that passes to the
surrounding sand and earth.
The applicants re-iterate the views of National Grid that overheating risks can be
designed out with a range of depths and cable sizes.
The applicants have also advised that whilst the Sheringham Shoal project has
buried cables, it is normal practice on cost grounds for most generation projects to
use overhead lines and pylons in rural areas. This option eliminates any possible risk
of soil heating impacts on crops, although it raises major visual impact challenges.
Development Committee
18
12 January 2012
The applicants re-iterate that detailed considerations regarding the protection and
handling of soils will be set out in a Soil Management Plan for agreement with the
District Council prior to onshore works commencing. Soil handling practices will be
employed on a field by field basis and dependent on a number of factors, and are
expected to prioritise certain locations for ‘summer working’ where practicable
particularly for the handling of topsoil. The applicants re-iterate their commitment to
adhering to DEFRA best practice guidance on soil handling and reinstatement. The
applicants have referred to a specific paragraph in the “Construction Code of Practice
for the Sustainable Use of Soils on Construction Sites” (DEFRA 2009), which
provides advice on how to treat different soil types after sustained heavy rainfall,
which they will follow.
Allowing for restrictions due to weather and soil conditions the applicants advise that
there is adequate flexibility to ensure that the project programme has sufficient
contingencies built in to cope with potential delays from extended periods of
unfavorable weather conditions. The initial feedback from contractors experienced in
undertaking this type of construction work has confirmed that a conservative
timetable has been assumed for this project and that it contains adequate
contingency for this and any other considerations. It is in the projects commercial
interests that soils are handled in accordance with the above best practice so as to
ensure that the land is restored at the earliest time to the same productiveness as the
remainder of the fields through which it passes.
Officers’ Comments
The District Council’s Soil Consultant has responded to the applicant’s comments on
soil issues, and subsequent correspondence and clarification on this matter has
taken place and is contained in full in Appendix 2.
In summary, the response received from the District Council’s Soil Consultant is that
the soil issues raised are not insurmountable and that a detailed design of the cable
system and Soil Management Plan should be conditioned to be submitted for
agreement with the District Council and in consultation with the Soil Consultant prior
to the commencement of the development.
In particular the Soil Consultant advises that in relation to soil depth crops root into
soil at different depths and that roots extract water from the soil to take up nutrients
to prevent wilting. Water storage capacity of soils is finite but varies with texture,
structure and stoniness. If crop demands for water exceed the available water
reserves in the soil the growth of the crop will slow or cease and yield will be
reduced. It is the Soil Consultant’s recommendation that crop extraction of water from
the deeper subsoil is factored into the Soil Management Plan and the related design
aspects of the scheme, such as cable depths.
With regard to the impact of soil heating on crop growth the Soil Consultant advises
that this is not limited to the potential for drying of the subsoil surrounding the cables
as implied by the applicants. Any raising of soil temperature has the potential to alter
the rate of growth and development of the crop along the line of the cables. This may
constitute an acceleration of its rate of growth and development such that it advances
to maturity ahead of the rest of the field. Such advancement may present challenges
to management, protection from pests and harvesting of the crop. This principle
needs to be addressed during the detailed design of the cable installation.
Notwithstanding the above the Soil Consultant has advised that in his view it should
be feasible to design and install the cables in such a way that potential impacts on
subsequent crop growth are negated or at least minimised. It is understood that
Development Committee
19
12 January 2012
compensation to landowners would be available in the event that any significant
impact is evident. It is therefore considered that a detailed design of the cable system
and Soil Management Plan should be conditioned if the application were to be
approved to allow these matters to be addressed.
It is therefore considered that whilst the Soil Consultant has raised some points in
relation to soil heating and impacts on crops these are matters that can be addressed
in the detailed design and Soil Management Plan to be agreed with Officers and the
Soil Consultant. They are not considered to be issues of sufficient significance to
justify the refusal of planning permission.
Other Issues
Clarification was also sought from the applicants regarding jointing bay covers and
hedge transplantation as follows:
1. Confirmation that the jointing bay covers will be removed once the jointing of each
length of cable is completed
It is confirmed that the jointing bay covers, used as protective screens during cable
jointing, would be removed when the jointing operations at each location have been
completed.
2. Views on the circumstances under which the Applicants would consider hedge
transplantation
During the design of the mitigation strategy the utilisation of hedgerow translocation
and transplantation was reviewed. However, due to the high failure rate this is not
currently recommended by any of the ecologists that have been consulted, nor
requested by any of the consultees, including the District Council, Natural England or
the Environment Agency.
Updates
In terms of report updates an email has been received from an objector following the
Little Dunham appeal decision being issued. The objector considers that:
1. The message given in the decision is that the substation was industrial in
nature and should only be sited in an industrial location, not a rural location.
2. The decision states that the substation is not suitable for a rural location and
any other rural location will face the same issues and will not be acceptable,
unless it is a major industrial location, which given the size of 25 acres plus it
would have to be in an industrial estate which would be Kings Lynn.
3. This means that the cable route proposed in North Norfolk has nowhere to
link up to and therefore there is no evidenced need for it.
In addition to the above the applicants have now confirmed in writing that the cable
route would be constructed using an AC connection and not a DC connection. This
does not affect the determination of this application. Both connections have been
fully considered as part of the application. The submitted plans are based on an AC
connection as this type of cable system requires earthing, and the need for the cable
jointing bays and cross bonding locations. These would not have been required if a
DC connection were used. With the use of an AC connection the cross bonding
equipment would be placed in buried pits with a surface manhole of approximately
1m by 1.3m in size. It is accepted that this would have minimal visual impact.
However, in certain locations it may be necessary to install above ground inspection
pillars. The pillars would measure approximately 1.16m in height by 1.05 wide and
0.46m deep. It is considered that this would have minimal visual impact and minimise
Development Committee
20
12 January 2012
the impact on the use of the land. The Conservation, Design and Landscape
Manager has raised no objection on this matter, nor has any of the other technical
consultees. Details of the underground cable layout and above ground features,
including cross bonding pits and pillars, can be conditioned to be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the
development.
Consultee responses following the receipt of amended plans in relation to extending
the HDD location at Ryburgh:
Ryburgh Parish Council - Object to the amended application for the reasons as
previously set out.
Environment Agency – The amendment does not alter our previous comments.
Natural England – Support
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager - Further to a visit with the applicants
at the site of the River Wensum section of the cable route and the receipt of
amended plans detailing an extension to the HDD section within the flood plain of the
river, the following comments are given.
An extension to the HDD operation on the northern part of the flood plain of the River
Wensum was suggested by both Officers and Members with a view to minimising the
disruption to the water features and semi-natural habitat found at the site. Following
a site visit and recent works by the Environment Agency to realign the river with the
former channel, it was concluded by both the applicants and myself that a small
extension to the proposed HDD section would be the most appropriate course of
action. The proposed extension to the HDD operation would conserve in situ an
additional section of grazing marsh and the dyke which was formerly the main river
channel and would also allow the appropriate siting of the drilling compounds within
the flood plain without causing undue damage to the habitat. It was not considered
necessary to increase the HDD further as this would serve no purpose and cause
greater disruption to the trees and hedges bordering the flood plain. Therefore CDL
approve the amended plans, subject to appropriate conditions to safeguard trees,
biodiversity and landscape (requested as part of the previous consultation process),
and do not object to the application.
Key Policy Issues
The key policy issues are the compliance of the development with the relevant
National, Regional and Local plan policies which are detailed in full in the report to
the meeting on 14 July 2011 in Appendix 2.
It also considered at some length the acceptability of the development having regard
to the issues of landscape and visual impact, impact on nature conservation, impact
on archaeology and cultural heritage, impact on residential amenities, impact on use
of land by landowners including soil issues, highway safety, health concerns,
principle of the need for development, consideration of alternative routes, East Coast
Transmission Network (ECTN), and landfall point at Weybourne Hope.
Other Material Considerations
Other material considerations on this matter include ministerial advice from the Rt
Hon Greg Clark MP – Minister for Decentralisation concerning Planning for Growth
dated 23 March 2011.
Development Committee
21
12 January 2012
The ministerial advice states, amongst other things, that:
When deciding whether to grant planning permission, local planning authorities
should support enterprise and facilitate housing, economic and other forms of
sustainable development. Where relevant - and consistent with their statutory
obligations - they should therefore:
(i) consider fully the importance of national planning policies aimed at fostering
economic growth and employment, given the need to ensure a return to robust
growth after the recent recession
(ii) take into account the need to maintain a flexible and responsive supply of land for
key sectors, including housing
(iii) consider the range of likely economic, environmental and social benefits of
proposals; including long term or indirect benefits such as increased consumer
choice, more viable communities and more robust local economies (which may,
where relevant, include matters such as job creation and business productivity)
(iv) be sensitive to the fact that local economies are subject to change and so take a
positive approach to development where new economic data suggest that prior
assessments of needs are no longer up-to-date
(v) ensure that they do not impose unnecessary burdens on development.
In determining planning applications, local planning authorities are obliged to have
regard to all relevant considerations. They should ensure that they give appropriate
weight to the need to support economic recovery, that applications that secure
sustainable growth are treated favourably (consistent with policy in PPS4), and that
they can give clear reasons for their decisions.
The Committee is referred to the ministerial advice in full. It constitutes a material
consideration to which appropriate weight should be afforded. It is a matter for the
Committee to decide what weight to give this statement.
In July 2011, the Department for Communities and Local Government issued Draft
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) for consultation which, amongst other
things, places greater emphasis towards securing sustainable economic growth.
Whilst the NPPF is not yet adopted Government policy it does give a clear indication
of the Government’s current intent. Again it is a matter for the Committee to decide
what weight to afford this document as a material planning consideration given that it
is only in draft at this stage and, following the consultation process, it may be revised
or altered in light of that consultation process. It is considered that the NPPF is a
matter which does attract some weight at this stage given that it is consistent with the
previous statements of Government policy.
Summary
Whilst the appeal for the substation at Little Dunham has been dismissed the
Secretaries of State concluded that a sub-station would be ‘vital to the utilisation and
distribution of off-shore wind energy’. They attached significant weight to the wider
environmental and economic benefits of the proposal in accordance with the
requirements of PPS22. The need for the sub-station was therefore accepted but the
location was not ‘given the harm proposed on the visual impact of the landscape and
significant change to the perception of the village which was considered to be
damaging to its rural ambience along with the intrinsic beauty of the landscape’.
The development subject to that appeal was for a substation consisting of some 4
DC converter buildings measuring 70m long, 25m wide and 15m high, an array of
electrical switch gear and connection apparatus up to 12m high, along with cable
gantries at a maximum height of 15m as well as banks of external fans, filter banks,
Development Committee
22
12 January 2012
control rooms, car park and access road with an inner compound containing all of the
electrical apparatus being protected by a metal palisade security fence. These are all
permanent above ground structures.
The application for consideration by this Council is for the installation of buried
electrical cables, which once installed would have minimal impact. The only above
ground structures that may be required in certain places are the above ground
inspection pillars at cross-bonding locations. The pillars would measure
approximately 1.16m high, 1.05m wide and 0.46m deep. Clearly, during the
construction phase the 40m wide working corridor (reduced to 20m wide at certain
points) would have a substantial visual impact upon the landscape, but this would be
for a temporary period only.
Following the receipt of additional supporting information from the applicants on soil
issues and clarifying a number of points the District Council’s Soil Consultant is of the
opinion that it is feasible to design and install the cables in such a way that potential
impacts on subsequent crop growth are negated or at least minimised, and that the
issues in relation to soils raised by objectors can be addressed through a Soil
Management Plan. It is not considered that the issues raised in relation to soils are
insurmountable nor would there be sufficient grounds to support refusal of the
application.
The Committee will note the detailed response of the Economic and Tourism
Development Manager who fully supports the application. It is considered that wind
energy development off the North Norfolk coastline is expected to generate positive
economic effects for North Norfolk and the wider area over the next forty plus years.
The effect on the local economy is considered to be beneficial, and will have a
positive effect through direct employment opportunities, as well as through
construction, supply chain and maintenance activities.
In respect of the project as a whole it is concluded that appropriate remediation and
mitigation measures would be provided and would be required by conditions. No
objections have been received from the technical consultees. The imposition of
relevant conditions requested by the consultees are considered to be acceptable.
The proposal is considered to accord with national and Development Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions, incorporating
those required by consultees, and including the following:
Working hours, noise mitigation, dust control, Traffic Management Plan, site
investigation into contaminants, contamination mitigation and pollution
control, pre-construction surveys, mitigation scheme for protected species,
submission of a programme of archaeological work, hedgerow removal and reinstatement, phasing of cable installation, details of underground cable layout,
positioning of cross bonding pits and pillars, proposals for reinstatement of
cable trenches at the end of construction activities including timescales,
preventing the commencement of the development unless or until the wind
farm is approved including that proposed under Stage 2, Construction Method
Statements, micro-positioning of compounds, Environmental Action Plan, soils
including a Soil Management Plan to cover detailed site specific cable design,
installation plans and soil management.
(Source: Jo Medler – Senior Planning Officer , ext 6128)
Development Committee
23
12 January 2012
PUBLIC BUSINESS - ITEM FOR DECISION
3.
SALTHOUSE - Residential conversion of barns at Bard Hill (applications
20060642 and 20060736)
A report seeking Committee’s approval to waive payment of first financial
contribution towards affordable housing and renegotiate the second payment.
Background
The above planning applications were approved in June 2006 and February 2007
respectively, and allow the conversion of barns at Bard Hill, Salthouse into six
dwellings. The approvals were given in the context of the North Norfolk Local Plan. A
Section 106 Agreement signed on 8 February 2007 provides for the provision of a
financial contribution in lieu of on site affordable housing. The financial contribution
of £92,000 is to be paid in 2 tranches. The first tranche is to be paid “within 21 days
from the completion of the sale of the third of the six dwellings to be created by the
permissions and the second payment to be made within 21 days from the date of
completion of the sale of the sixth dwelling to be created by the permission.”
Four of the six dwellings have been provided through the conversion of the barns and
three have been sold. The first tranche of the affordable housing contribution is now
outstanding as the sale of the third dwelling was completed on 29 July 2011.
The applicant has written to the Council to request that the affordable housing
contribution is removed. The applicant states “The removal of the financial
contribution will also relieve the bank pressure on us and as they are party to the 106
this will hopefully prevent the company going into some form of insolvency which will
help nobody.” The Council has not received any independent confirmation that the
applicant is facing some form of insolvency.
Information provided by the applicant has been received which shows that when the
financial contribution was agreed in 2007 it was viable for this contribution to be
provided.
As the financial contribution is to be paid in two tranches and only the trigger for the
payment of the first tranche has been reached, the viability of paying the first tranche
based on the costs of conversion and sale proceeds for the first three dwellings has
been considered independently of the requirement to pay a second tranche.
Consideration of whether it is viable for the applicant to pay some or all of the second
tranche payment of £46,000 can only be carried out once the remaining barns have
been sold and the full costs and actual sales income received are known.
The Council’s Housing Strategy Team Leader has analysed the information provided
by the developer on the cost of converting the barns and considers that the proceeds
received from the sale of the three sold barn conversions show that it is not viable for
the applicant to provide any of the first tranche of the affordable housing contribution
at this stage.
The sale of a fourth (converted) barn is currently on hold as the purchaser’s Solicitors
do not want their purchaser to be liable for the outstanding contribution. (This would
not be the case as the applicant is liable).
Further information is being sought concerning the costs of works carried out to one
barn which is in an unconverted state and is unsold.
Development Committee
24
12 January 2012
In the light of the Housing Strategy Team Leader’s advice it is recommended that the
request be granted.
RECOMMENDATION
That the developer be allowed to proceed with the conversion of the remaining
units without being required to pay the first tranche of the affordable housing
contribution at this time and that the viability of providing the second payment
be considered when all the barns have been sold and all costs of the
conversion are known.
(Source: Gary Linder – Senior Planning Officer , ext 6152)
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEM FOR DECISION
4.
CHANGE TO PROCEDURE FOR RESOLVING ENFORCEMENT CASES
This report requests the Committee’s consideration of a strategy for the
management of Enforcement caseload.
Members will recall that at the last meeting a long schedule of outstanding
enforcement cases was considered and will have noted that a backlog of cases more
than three months old had built up.
As part of a strategy for dealing with this situation it is intended to group cases into
District Ward areas and to seek to use delegated powers already available to the
Head of Planning and Building Control in the Council’s Constitution to resolve cases
with the agreement of local Members and the Chairman (or Vice-Chairman) of the
Committee.
Historically, cases have only been removed from the schedule when it has been
established:
1) That there is no breach of planning control;
2) That the breach has been remedied on a voluntary basis;
3) That Enforcement action has been taken, either using delegated powers or with
the Committee’s authority; or
4) That no further action should be taken, with the agreement of the Committee.
With respect to this latter category, it is now proposed to use delegated powers,
following discussion with local Members, to agree cases where it is not considered
expedient to pursue Enforcement action as suggested above. If either a local
Member or the Chairman of the Committee were to disagree, action would continue
to be pursued or the matter reported to Committee in the normal way.
It is hoped that by using this route a number of minor cases can be resolved
efficiently, thus allowing effort to be concentrated on more significant breaches of
control.
Depending on the nature and number of outstanding cases, it may be more efficient
to hold meetings with individual Ward Members and the Chairman where there are
groups of cases to discuss, concentrating initially on those Wards where the largest
number of cases exist. The process is likely to take several months to complete
because of the size of the backlog.
Development Committee
25
12 January 2012
Members will, of course, have the opportunity to review progress every quarter
through scrutiny of the Schedule of Outstanding Cases.
The Committee is asked to support this initiative with the aim of managing more
effectively current enforcement workload.
RECOMMENDATION
That the Committee notes and supports the use of delegated powers to
resolve outstanding Enforcement cases in consultation with local Ward
Members and the Chairman/Vice-Chairman of the Development
Committee.
(Source: Steve Oxenham, Head of Planning and Building Control ext 6135)
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEMS FOR DECISION
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Note :- Recommendations for approval include a standard time limit condition as Condition
No.1, unless otherwise stated.
5.
HOLT - PF/11/0989 - Conversion of outbuilding to two-storey dwelling and
erection of 2 two-and-a-half-storey dwellings; Land rear of 27 High Street for C
T Baker Ltd
Minor Development
- Target Date: 05 October 2011
Case Officer: Miss T Lincoln
Full Planning Permission
See also application LE/11/1013 below.
CONSTRAINTS
Archaeological Site
Primary Shopping Area
Conservation Area
Town Centre
Listed Building Grade II
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PF09/0397 - Conversion of stable to two-storey dwelling and erection of two twostorey dwellings
Refused 16/06/2009
PF/09/0872 - Conversion of stable to two-storey dwelling and erection of two-storey
dwelling
Withdrawn by Applicant 15/03/2009
THE APPLICATION
Is for the conversion of a stable to a two-storey dwelling and the erection of two x
two-and-a-half-storey dwellings.
A stable adjacent to the listed building to the north-west would be converted to form a
two-bedroom dwelling. Existing offices and storage areas would be demolished and
two x two-bedroom dwellings built on the same footprint. Small courtyard gardens for
each dwelling would be provided and a courtyard area to the front of the dwellings
would provide a further shared area of outside space.
Development Committee
26
12 January 2012
Pedestrian access would be taken from a private track off the highway with no
vehicular parking provision.
The application has been amended to reduce the height and scale of the two
proposed dwellings from originally three-and-a-half-storey to two-and-a-half-storey
dwellings and to amend window openings on the front elevation of unit 1.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Managing director of applicant company is a Member of the Council.
TOWN COUNCIL
Comments on original application. Objects to the application for the following
reasons:
There are concerns relating to access on to High Street, access for emergency
services, and exacerbating existing traffic congestion in the High Street.
Comments on amended application - No objection.
CONSULTATIONS
Sustainability Co-ordinator - No objection subject to compliance with the submitted
sustainability construction checklist and with the Code for Sustainable Homes level 3.
County Highway Authority With reference to the consultation received recently to the above development
proposal, I would be against any proposal to intensify the vehicular use of the access
that serves these buildings
The application form indicates that no vehicular parking provision is to be provided
within the site.
It is acknowledged that providing on site vehicular parking would be extremely
difficult to provide for the 3 proposed dwellings, however in the previous application it
was detailed that 6 cycle parking places were available, I would consider that the
provision of these cycle spaces is beneficial and I would seek its inclusion in this
application
Given the town centre location and subject to the cycle parking being detailed and
conditioned to prevent vehicular use, I have no objection to the proposal, therefore,
should your Authority be minded to approve the application the following conditions
should be appended to any consent notice issued:- No works shall commence on
site until a scheme for the increased parking of cycles (6) has been submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be fully
implemented before the development is first occupied or brought into use and
thereafter retained for this purpose.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager - No objection to the principle of this
development. Amendments to the window openings on the front elevation of unit 1
and clarification around the roof entrance to unit 2 are required. Following receipt of
this it is anticipated C&D would be able to lend support to this scheme.
Further comments are awaited on the amended plans received.
Environmental Health - No objection subject to a condition requiring details of the
method of demolition to be agreed.
Development Committee
27
12 January 2012
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS 5: Economy (strategic approach to economic issues).
Policy SS 9: Holt (identifies strategic development requirements).
Policy HO 1: Dwelling mix and type (specifies type and mix of dwellings for new
housing developments).
Policy HO 7: Making the most efficient use of land (Housing density) (Proposals
should optimise housing density in a manner which protects or enhances the
character of the area).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of the development
2. Density
3. Scale and design
4. Impact on the adjacent listed building and Conservation Area
5. Residential amenity
6. Impact on the highway and parking provision
APPRAISAL
The site is located within the Holt Town Centre and designated primary shopping
area as defined by the Core Strategy and is also within the Holt Conservation Area,
where Core Strategy Policies SS 5, EN 4 and EN 8 are particularly relevant. Policy
SS 5 states that in town centre locations residential proposals will be permitted,
where they do not result in the loss of shops or other main town centre uses located
within a defined Primary Shopping Area. Proposals should also have regard to the
integration of public transport in town centres and seek to provide pedestrian friendly
environments.
Policies EN 4 and EN 8 require that all development will be designed to a high
quality, reinforcing local distinctiveness and that design which fails to have regard to
local context and does not preserve or enhance the character and appearance of an
Development Committee
28
12 January 2012
area will not be accepted. In addition proposals should not have a significantly
detrimental effect on the residential amenity of nearby occupiers and new dwellings
should provide acceptable residential amenity.
Given that there are no shops or other significant town centre uses being lost, the
principle of new residential development is considered to be acceptable in this
location under Policy SS5 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy, subject to
satisfactory compliance with other relevant Development Plan policies.
The proposal complies with the housing density requirements in accordance with
Policy HO7.
In respect of the dwelling mix and type, Policy HO1 requires on schemes of three or
four dwelling, at least one dwelling to comprise not more than 70sqm internal floor
space and incorporate two bedrooms or fewer. In this case all proposed dwellings
would have two bedrooms, but none of the dwellings would have a floor area less
than 70sqm (they are all approx 80sqm). Given that all three dwellings would have
only a limited additional floor area above 70sqm, ensuring that the dwellings would
still be modest in scale, it is considered that the core aims of the policy would be met,
i.e. that a high proportion of all new homes would be smaller properties.
In terms of sustainable construction and energy efficiency, the proposal would
comply with Policy EN 6, subject to the two new dwellings being built to meet a level
three rating under the Code for Sustainable Homes and the conversion being
completed in accordance with the submitted Sustainable Construction Checklist.
The compact form of the proposal would be broadly in keeping with the form and
character of this part of Holt with its close knit development. The scale and massing
of the proposed buildings, following their reduction in scale, would generally relate
sympathetically to the surrounding buildings, but further comments regarding design
and visual appearance/impact of the proposal in the Conservation Area are awaited
from the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager.
In respect of the impact on the adjacent listed building, given that the existing stable
adjoining the listed building is to be retained and converted to form a dwelling, it is
considered that no adverse impact on the fabric or character of the listed building is
likely to result.
In respect of residential amenity issues, the close relationship between the proposed
dwellings would replicate other similar situations within the town and whilst the
garden sizes are small and would not comply with the Design Guide criterion
whereby gardens should be no smaller in area than that of the footprint of the
dwelling, all three dwellings would also benefit from a shared, hard landscaped
courtyard area to the front of the buildings and this would significantly increase their
outside amenity area. Furthermore the North Norfolk Design Guide allows for
flexibility with this requirement where it would harm design quality or the form and
character of the area and to maximise housing density. In this case there is a clear
tight knit form of the surrounding development and the scheme is considered
acceptable in respect of provision of outside amenity space.
With regard to neighbouring amenity, the close relationship between the proposed
dwellings would replicate other similar situations within the town and whilst some
overlooking of the garden areas of the dwellings to the south would result, since
these are already overlooked by the other surrounding dwellings it is not considered
that the addition of the proposed dwellings would result in any significantly adverse
loss of privacy so as to justify refusal of the application.
Development Committee
29
12 January 2012
In terms of the close relationship between proposed units 1 and 2 and the building to
be converted to form unit 3, the internal layout of the dwellings and limited opening
on the front north elevation of units 1 & 2 would ensure that the proposed courtyard
garden for unit 1 would not result in adverse overlooking. Therefore, whilst the
relationship between the three dwellings would be close it is considered that there
would be no adverse impact on the amenities of any of the proposed dwellings due to
the proposed elevation design and internal layout.
In respect of the highway impact of the proposal, there is an existing access to the
site onto High Street and this has formerly been used for the loading/unloading for
the adjacent retail use. The scheme proposed would not provide on site parking and
as such the access is not intended for vehicular use. The Highway Authority has
confirmed that it would not want to see the use of that access intensified and so the
scheme as proposed raises no highway objection.
In respect of parking provision, although the proposal would not provide for any
vehicular parking, the minimum requirement being a total of 6 spaces (2 per
dwelling), Policy CT 6 allows for a reduction is the standard parking requirements in
town centres where there are sufficient local services, where there is access to
acceptable levels of public transport or where within a Conservation Areas the
proposal would result in an improved building design which enhances the character
of the built environment. In this case, whilst it is accepted that at the present time
there is an under-provision of car parking within Holt, it is well served by public
transport and local services. In addition it is considered that the development would
enhance this part of the town centre. As such it is considered that the lack of car
parking would provide insufficient grounds to justify refusal of the application,
particularly since the Highway Authority has raised no objection, subject to cycle
facilities being provided.
In summary, subject to the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager
confirming no objection to the amended scheme, the proposal is considered to be
acceptable and not to conflict significantly with the Development Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated authority to approve, subject to no objection from the Conservation,
Design and Landscape Manager in respect of changes to the fenestration on
units 1 and 2 and the imposition of appropriate conditions, including
submission of precise details of materials, the removal of permitted
development rights for alterations, extensions and outbuildings, submission of
a scheme for onsite cycle parking provision, compliance with the code for
sustainable homes and sustainable construction checklist and any conditions
recommended by the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager.
6.
HOLT - LE/11/1013 - Demolition of outbuildings; Rear of 27 High Street for C T
Baker Ltd
- Target Date: 18 October 2011
Case Officer: Miss T Lincoln
Conservation Area Demolition
See also application PF/11/0989 above.
CONSTRAINTS
Conservation Area
Listed Building Grade II
Development Committee
30
12 January 2012
THE APPLICATION
Is for Conservation Area Consent for the demolition of outbuildings at land to the rear
of 27 High Street.
The buildings to be demolished are a combination of shallow pitched and flat roofed
outbuildings to the rear of the site which were formerly used for storage and office
use by Betty's of Holt. They would be replaced by residential development the
subject of application PF/11/0989.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Managing director of applicant company is a Member of the Council.
TOWN COUNCIL
No response
CONSULTATIONS
Environmental Health - no objection subject to a condition requiring a scheme for the
method of demolition to be submitted and agreed.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager - On the basis that the outbuildings
in question are not of any particular architectural or historic merit there is no objection
to the proposed demolition. Furthermore, as taking down the structures would not
create a gap site within the Holt Conservation Area, it is not considered that this
application needs to be tied to any redevelopment proposal.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
Impact of the proposed demolition on the Conservation Area.
APPRAISAL
The site is located within Holt Town Centre and designated primary shopping area as
defined by the Core Strategy and is also within the Holt Conservation Area, where
Core Strategy Policies EN8, EN13 are relevant.
Policy EN8 states that proposals involving the demolition of non-listed buildings will
be assessed against the contribution to the architectural or historic interest of the
area made by that building. Where a building makes little contribution to the area,
consent for demolition will be given provided that, in appropriate cases, there are
acceptable and detailed plans for any redevelopment or after-use.
Development Committee
31
12 January 2012
The scheme as proposed would involve the demolition of a flat roof and shallow
pitched outbuilding to the rear of 27 High Street which is Grade II Listed. These
outbuildings are separated from the listed building by an old stable which is to be
retained and converted.
The buildings to be demolished are not of any particular architectural or historic merit
and as such it is not considered that their demolition would adversely affect the
character or appearance of the adjacent listed building or the wider Conservation
Area and this view has been confirmed by the Council’s Conservation, Design and
Landscape Manager.
A scheme for redevelopment of the site is for consideration under planning reference
11/0989, although as advised by the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager,
as the removal of these structures would not create a gap site within the Holt
Conservation Area, it is not considered that this application needs to be tied to any
redevelopment proposal by way of a condition.
It is therefore considered that the demolition proposed is acceptable and would
accord with Development plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve, subject to the imposition of a condition requiring a scheme for the
method of demolition to be submitted and agreed.
7.
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/11/0372 - Conversion of A1 (retail)/office unit to
residential flat; 4 Bank Loke for Anchor Homes Ltd
Minor Development
- Target Date: 30 May 2011
Case Officer: Miss S Tudhope
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Conservation Area
Primary Shopping Area
Town Centre
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20060582 PF - Erection of eight flats and two shops
Approved 25/05/2006
PLA/20081078 PF - Change of use of two class a1 retail units to offices
Approved 29/08/2008
PLA/20050712 PF - Change of use from bakery/retail shop to a1 (retail)
Approved 23/05/2005
PLA/20051269 PF - Erection of three shops and six flats
Approved 06/10/2005
THE APPLICATION
Is for conversion of a ground floor office unit to a one bedroom residential flat.
The unit is within a modern building currently comprising of eight flats and two
retail/office units, situated to the south east side of Bank Loke. The proposed
conversion includes external alterations to the fenestration on the north elevation.
Development Committee
32
12 January 2012
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor A Moore having regard to the following planning issue:
Conflict with adopted Core Strategy Policy SS5
TOWN COUNCIL
Supports
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways): No objection, subject to a condition to prevent any
overhanging or encroachment upon highway land.
Environmental Health: No objection
Community Safety Manager: Asked to be advised if permission is granted to enable
activation of privacy patches to the CCTV system to prevent intrusion into the private
dwelling.
Sustainability Officer: No objection subject to imposition of appropriate condition.
Planning Policy Manager: No objection. This site is located within the defined Primary
Shopping Area of North Walsham Town Centre where the loss of retail units as a
consequence of conversion to residential uses is contrary to Policy SS5. The
objective of this policy is to support the overall vitality and viability of the town centre
by ensuring that its core function as a shopping destination is not undermined.
The evidence supplied by the applicant would suggest that this property has only
made a very limited contribution to this objective. Since its construction in 2006/07 it
has been vacant for approximately 35 months (70% vacancy rate) and despite
evidence of marketing during this period there has been little interest. In my view this
is likely to be a result of a number of factors including the site location, the limited
size of the unit and the current economic climate.
Given these circumstances I have no objection to the grant of planning permission.
The decision notice should make clear the reasons for the departure from policy and
should include reference to location, size, evidence of marketing and current
economic climate.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
Development Committee
33
12 January 2012
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy SS 5: Economy (strategic approach to economic issues).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Impact on the vitality and viability of the town centre and conflict with Policy SS5
2. Impact on the Conservation Area
3 Amenity of parking drives
APPRAISAL
The site lies within the area designated as Town Centre, Primary Shopping Area and
Conservation Area.
The main issue for consideration is that the site is located within the defined Primary
Shopping Area of North Walsham Town Centre where the loss of retail units as a
consequence of conversion to residential uses is contrary to Policy SS5 and would
normally be resisted. The objective of this policy is to support the overall vitality and
viability of the town centre by ensuring that its core function as a shopping
destination is not undermined.
The applicant supplied evidence to demonstrate that the property has only made a
very limited contribution to this objective. Since its construction in 2006/07 it has
been vacant for approximately 35 months (70% vacancy rate) and despite evidence
of marketing during this period there has been little interest. The Planning Policy
Manager advises that this is likely to be a result of a number of factors including the
site location, on the very edge of the Primary Shopping Area, the limited size of the
unit and the current economic climate. Given these circumstances a departure from
policy is considered acceptable.
The applicant was contacted in November after information indicated that the
premises may have become occupied by a business. The applicant confirmed that he
had set up "the Business Base" as a further attempt to let the premises with the
concept being that individuals or other businesses could rent 'business zones' of a
size to suit their budget/business which may have been more affordable/relevant in
the current climate. Despite this attempt, which has included new signage, flyers and
a series of advertisement both locally and on the internet, the applicant has stated
that no interest has materialised. The Planning Policy Manager has advised that this
latest attempt to utilise the unit for business purposes does not negate the earlier
recommendation that a departure from Policy SS5 is considered acceptable in this
case.
In terms of external amenity space, given the town centre location, provision of the
usual private amenity space is not considered necessary. There is an existing bin
storage area for the overall development.
No parking provision is included, but no objection has been raised by the County
Highway Authority which considers that there are extensive limited duration and
public car parking facilities within the vicinity of the site. Other residential flats do not
have dedicated parking within the development site.
Development Committee
34
12 January 2012
The proposal includes some external alterations to the north elevation. Amended
plans have been received following the advice of the Conservation Design and
Landscape Manager. The amended external design is now considered to be
acceptable, would preserve the appearance of the Conservation Area and is in
compliance with Policies EN4 and EN8.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve, subject to the imposition of the following conditions:
1
This permission is granted in accordance with the plans first submitted with the
application (excepting the superseded proposed North elevation plan) and the
amended plan received by the Local Planning Authority on 6 December 2011.
Reason:
To ensure the satisfactory layout and appearance of the development in
accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
2
Unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the
residential flat subject to this permission shall not be occupied until the following
measures identified in the Sustainable Construction Checklist submitted with the
planning application have been implemented:
i. More than 80% of light fittings to be fitted with low energy (45 lumens/Watt or
greater) bulbs.
ii. All new timber used in construction to be from a certified sustainable (i.e.
Forest Stewardship Council, or equivalent) source.
iii. Water saving fixtures and fittings to be installed comprising showers with a
maximum flow rate of 9l/min, aerated or reduced flow taps with a maximum
flow rate of 6l/min and WCs with a 6/4l dual flush or lower.
Reason:
In the interests of achieving a satisfactory form of sustainable construction in
accordance with Policy EN 6 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
Note:
The applicants are advised that no part of the proposed structure (to include fascia
board/rainwater goods and guttering) should overhang or encroach upon highway
land and no gate/door/ground floor window, if installed, should open outwards over
the highway.
8.
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
ALBY WITH THWAITE - PF/11/1268 - Use of land for siting 4 camping pods and
shower pod; Land at Deers Glade, Hanworth for Deers Glade CCP
(Full Planning Permission)
ALDBOROUGH - PF/11/1197 - Erection of single-storey side extension; The Old
Rectory, Hall Road for Mrs P Hammond
(Householder application)
ALDBOROUGH - PF/11/1221 - Creation of wildlife pond; East end of the Village
Green for Aldborough Wildlife Group
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
35
12 January 2012
ANTINGHAM - AI/11/1342 - Continued display of illuminated advertisement;
Elderton Lodge, Cromer Road, Thorpe Market for Gunton Arms Ltd
(Advertisement Illuminated)
AYLMERTON - PF/11/1177 - Raising of roof to provide first floor habitable
accommodation and erection of two-storey rear extension; Row Farm, Holt
Road for Mr & Mrs C Pigott
(Householder application)
AYLMERTON - NMA1/09/0979 - Non-material amendment request for installation
of two rooflights; Park Wall Farm, Park Road for Mr & Mrs A Colman
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
BACTON - PF/11/1294 - Erection of replacement double garage; The Old
Rectory, Rectory Road, Edingthorpe for Mr & Mrs Vincent
(Full Planning Permission)
BARTON TURF - PF/11/1314 - Variation of Condition 2 of permission reference:
11/0457 to permit insertion of gable window; Primrose Cottage, Common Road
The Common for Mr P Sizmur
(Full Planning Permission)
BARTON TURF - NMA1/08/0012 - Non material-amendment request to change
thatched roof to clay pantiles; Sheralon, Smallburgh Road for Mr Jewell
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
BINHAM - PF/11/1143 - Removal of Condition 11 of permission ref: 07/1951 to
permit full residential occupation; The Cartshed, Westgate Farm Barns, 91
Warham Road for Mr D Thompson
(Full Planning Permission)
BLAKENEY - PF/11/1071 - Demolition of attached workshop and detached
carport, erection of one and a half storey side extension, one and a half storey
annexe/garages with link extension, creation of balconies, dormer windows
overhanging roof eaves, insertion of rooflights, first floor windows and doors,
raising height of roof and installation of solar panels and skinning of the
existing brickwork with brick and flint; Sedges, Back Lane for Draycott
Developments Ltd
(Householder application)
BLAKENEY - LA/11/1091 - Removal of dormer and installation of two
conservation rooflights; The Old Rectory, 6 Wiveton Road for Mr Smedley
(Listed Building Alterations)
BLAKENEY - PF/11/1315 - Installation of gable window; Moonrakers, Back Lane,
Blakeney, Holt, NR25 7NP for Mrs S Rogerson
(Householder application)
BODHAM - PF/11/1062 - Erection of building to provide car showroom and two
industrial units; Crayford And Abbs, Weybourne Road for Crayford & Abbs and
North Norfolk Garden Machinery
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
36
12 January 2012
BRISTON - PF/11/1249 - Erection of extension to cartshed to form annexe; Lark
Rise, Craymere Road for Mr Glasspole
(Householder application)
BRISTON - NMA1/10/1147 - Non-material amendment request for revised roof
profile to units 4-7; 125-131 Fakenham Road for Victory Housing Trust
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/11/1229 - Installation of front and rear dormer
windows and extension of roof; Anterton, Hilltop for Mr Batten
(Householder application)
COLBY - PF/11/1154 - Conversion of outbuilding to residential annexe/holiday
accommodation; Barn at Old Mill Farm, Mill Road, Banningham for Mr Clements
(Full Planning Permission)
COLBY - PF/11/1310 - Erection of single-storey rear extension (revised roof
detail); Magnolia Cottage, Church Road for Mr A Blackburn
(Householder application)
CORPUSTY AND SAXTHORPE - PF/11/0747 - Conversion of barn to residential
dwelling, erection of garage and creation of vehicular access; Barn adjacent,
Manor House, Norwich Road for Mr P Edney
(Full Planning Permission)
CORPUSTY AND SAXTHORPE - PF/11/1336 - Installation of stand-alone solar
array; Shrubbs Farm, Edgefield Road, Edgefield for C J C Lee (Saxthorpe) Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - NMA1/10/0150 - Non-material amendment request for alterations to
windows, insertion of ground floor doors, enlargement of Holding Bay and
installation of PV panels; Cromer & District Hospital, Mill Road for Norfolk &
Norwich University Hospitals Foundation Trust
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
CROMER - PF/11/0965 - Change of use of ground floor shop and first floor flat to
4 one-bedroomed flats; 101-103 Mill Road for Mr Hall
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - PF/11/1317 - Erection of 18.04m telecommunications monopole with
3 antennae and equipment cabinet; Cromer Rail Station, Holt Road for Vodafone
Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
DILHAM - PF/11/1141 - Raising height of roof and installation of dormer
windows to provide accommodation in roof space and erection of single-storey
and two-storey rear extension; Hawthorn Cottage, The Street for Mr & Mrs
Taylor
(Householder application)
EDGEFIELD - PF/11/0886 - Installation of photo voltaic panels and variation of
condition 8 of planning permission reference PF/10/1176 to permit alternative
tiles to be used on the single-storey buildings subject to the application; Lowes
Farm, Hunworth Road for Mrs A MacNicol
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
37
12 January 2012
EDGEFIELD - LA/11/0954 - Installation of photo voltaic panel to existing barn
conversion and variation of condition 3 of Listed Building Consent reference
LA/10/1177 to permit alternative tiles to be used on the single-storey buildings
subject to that application; Lowes Farm Barns, Hunworth Road for Mrs
MacNicol
(Listed Building Alterations)
EDGEFIELD - LA/11/1340 - Installation of replacement windows; Lowes Farm,
Hunworth Road for Stody Estate
(Listed Building Alterations)
EDGEFIELD - NMA1/10/1187 - Non-material amendment request to omit the sun
pipe and install roof light; Jordans, Pecks Lane for Belcoombe Limited
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
FAKENHAM - PF/11/1239 - Construction of rear dormer window; 11 Nelson Road
for Mr & Mrs J Francis
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - PF/11/1259 - Erection of two-storey side extension; 9 Nightingale
Close for Mr & Mrs Fish
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - PF/11/1261 - Conversion of garage to habitable accommodation
and construction of link corridor; 49 Gwyn Crescent for Mr Denyer
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - NMA1/09/0877 - Request for non-material amendment to use box
gutters on east and south elevations of approved extension; 27 Sculthorpe
Road for Mr Scoles
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
GREAT SNORING - PF/10/1465 - Extension and conversion of former workhouse
chapel to holiday dwelling; Thursford Castle, Thursford Road for Mr & Mrs Linn
(Full Planning Permission)
HAPPISBURGH - PF/11/1262 - Installation of photovoltaic panels; Church
Rooms, The Street for St Mary's Church PCC
(Full Planning Permission)
HAPPISBURGH - PF/11/1298 - Erection of front conservatory; Rosemound, 5
Cart Gap Road for Mr & Mrs White
(Full Planning Permission)
HAPPISBURGH - LE/11/1387 - Demolition of 2 redundant brick and tile
buildings; R N L I Lifeboat House, Beach Road for North Norfolk District Council
(Conservation Area Demolition)
HAPPISBURGH - DP/11/1388 - Prior notification of intention to demolish two
brick and tile buildings; R N L I Lifeboat House, Beach Road for North Norfolk
District Council
(Prior Notification (Demolition))
HEMPSTEAD - PF/11/1338 - Installation of stand-alone solar array; Becketts
Farm, Baconsthorpe Road for C J C Lee (Saxthorpe) Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
38
12 January 2012
HIGH KELLING - PF/11/1256 - Erection of replacement garage; Auriol, Vale Road
for Mr C Coleman
(Householder application)
HIGH KELLING - PF/11/1289 - Erection of single storey side/front extension; The
Briar Patch, Warren Close for Mr & Mrs Stanley
(Householder application)
HIGH KELLING - PF/11/1320 - Erection of single-storey rear extension and
detached garage; Silverbirches, 29 Pineheath Road for Ms J Venworth
(Householder application)
HIGH KELLING - PF/11/1334 - Erection of extension to entrance lobby and
disabled toilet facilities; 15 Avenue Road for Mrs C Otty
(Full Planning Permission)
HOVETON - PF/11/1263 - Change of use from B8 (warehouse) to D1 (exhibition
hall/museum); Unit 7, Station Road Business Park, Horning Road West for H
Semmence & Co Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
HOVETON - PF/11/1367 - Variation of conditions 2 and 3 of planning permission
reference PF/11/0360 to change conservatory to garden room and reduction in
glazing and amended size; 140 Stalham Road for Mrs G Gourlay
(Householder application)
KELLING - NMA1/10/0130 - Non material-amendment request to insert loft door
in gable end of garage; Harebell Cottage, The Street for Mr Hall
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
KETTLESTONE - PF/11/1254 - Erection of storage building with roof-mounted
voltaic panels; Manor Farmhouse, The Street for Mr R Ives
(Full Planning Permission)
KNAPTON - LA/11/1295 - Internal alterations; Flat 3, Knapton House, North
Walsham Road for Mr Cook
(Listed Building Alterations)
LUDHAM - PF/11/1286 - Installation of solar photo voltaic panel array to
outbuilding; The Mill House, How Hill for Mrs E Ellis-Paul
(Householder application)
LUDHAM - LA/11/1359 - Installation of photovoltaic panel array to outbuilding;
The Mill House, How Hill for Mrs Ellis-Paul
(Listed Building Alterations)
MORSTON - PF/11/1264 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; Anchor Inn,
20 The Street for Mr S Farrow
(Full Planning Permission)
MORSTON - LA/11/1265 - Alterations to facilitate erection of single-storey rear
extension; Anchor Inn, 20 The Street for Mr S Farrow
(Listed Building Alterations)
Development Committee
39
12 January 2012
MUNDESLEY - PF/11/1269 - Erection of garden room extension; Meadow House,
38 Cromer Road for Mr Maddison
(Householder application)
MUNDESLEY - PF/11/1311 - Erection of bin store; 26 Paston Road for Society of
the Sacred Heart
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/11/1055 - Change of use from A1 (retail) to D2 (personal
training/fitness studio); 5 St Nicholas Court, Vicarage Street for Len Bullimore &
Sons
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/11/1056 - Change of use of first and second floors and
alterations, including dormer and rooflights to form 2 residential flats; 6 St
Nicholas Court, Vicarage Street for Len Bullimore & Sons
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/11/1166 - Erection of two-storey side extension; 1
Recreation Road for Mr D Coop
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/11/1241 - Erection of two-storey side extension; 4
Hamilton Close for Mr Howes
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - DP/11/1432 - Prior notification of intention to demolish all
buildings; Mace's Yard, Cromer Road for Bullen Developments Ltd
(Prior Notification (Demolition))
NORTHREPPS - PF/11/1051 - Erection of front boundary fence; Croftnest,
Norwich Road for Mrs L Knight
(Householder application)
NORTHREPPS - PF/11/1276 - Erection of first floor rear extension; Mardlers, 51
Crossdale Street for Mr Hayward
(Householder application)
OVERSTRAND - PF/11/0630 - Erection of two-storey dwelling; Land rear of 17
Mundesley Road for Mr & Mrs A Walker
(Full Planning Permission)
RUNTON - PF/11/1232 - Erection of single-storey side extension; 3 Golf Close,
West Runton for Ms P Kilgour
(Householder application)
RUNTON - PF/11/1305 - Construction of two concrete hard standings for siting
of LPG gas tanks; Ingleborough Fields Caravan Site, Station Close, West
Runton for The Caravan Club
(Full Planning Permission)
RYBURGH - PF/11/1242 - Erection of single-storey rear extension and relocation of existing garage; 38 Fakenham Road, Great Ryburgh for Mr Collins
(Householder application)
Development Committee
40
12 January 2012
SCULTHORPE - PF/11/1296 - Variation of condition 3 of planning ref: 03/1618 to
permit permanent residential occupancy; Barn 4, The Grange, Lynn Road for Mr
Manchett
(Full Planning Permission)
SCULTHORPE - PF/11/1297 - Variation of condition 3 of planning ref: 03/1618 to
permit permanent residential occupancy; Barn 5, The Grange, Lynn Road for Mr
Riggott
(Full Planning Permission)
SEA PALLING - PF/11/1112 - Erection of two-storey side extension, singlestorey side and rear extensions to provide annexe; 3 St Margarets Place for Mr
& Mrs Heward
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/11/1231 - Conversion of one dwelling into two units; 53-54
Beeston Common for Mr & Mrs Masters
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/11/1250 - Erection of single-storey side extension; 17 Abbey
Road for Mr M Sheridan
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/11/1308 - Installation of lantern light to allow conversion of
attached garage to garden room; 6 Montague Road for Mr C Crouch
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/11/1321 - Erection of single-storey front extension and
alterations of part of roof; 6 Holt Road for Mr H Jamieson
(Householder application)
SOUTHREPPS - PF/11/1073 - Erection of two-storey dwelling
accommodation in roof space; Plot 21, Beechlands Park for Mr Walsh
(Full Planning Permission)
with
STALHAM - PF/11/1225 - Erection of 1.8m high front boundary wall and
alteration to access; Holme House, Yarmouth Road, The Green for Mr & Mrs N
Smith
(Householder application)
STALHAM - PF/11/1277 - Variation of condition 3 of planning permission
reference: 03/2011 to permit permanent residential occupation; Barn 10 West
End Farm, Chapel Field, Chapel Field Road for Mr L Platt
(Full Planning Permission)
STALHAM - PF/11/1330 - Erection of replacement 1.83m high boundary fence;
Broadside Chalet Park for Stalham Chalets Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
STIBBARD - PF/11/1150 - Alterations to outbuilding to create additional
accommodation; Old Rectory, Fulmodeston Road for Mr & Mrs Douds
(Householder application)
SUTTON - PF/11/1019 - Erection of lean-to shed; Willow Barn, Hickling Road for
Mrs F Bird
(Householder application)
Development Committee
41
12 January 2012
TATTERSETT - PF/11/1220 - Erection of two-storey front extension, singlestorey side extension with roof terrace and detached double garage; Pear Tree
Cottage, 1 Dunton Road, Tatterford for Mr Sinclair
(Householder application)
TATTERSETT - PF/11/1253 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 2 Halifax
Crescent, Sculthorpe for Mr & Mrs A Easter
(Householder application)
TUNSTEAD - PF/11/1182 - Erection of single-storey side extension; Church Farm
House, Church Road for Mr and Mrs T Place
(Householder application)
TUNSTEAD - PF/11/1208 - Variation of Condition 7 of permission reference
05/0764 to permit permanent residential occupation; 15 Laurel Farm Barns,
Market Street for Mrs S Simpson
(Full Planning Permission)
TUNSTEAD - PF/11/1246 - Erection of first floor side extension and single-storey
rear extension; Cedar Lodge, Market Street for Mrs Anderton
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/11/1222 - Insertion of replacement dormer window
to front elevation, creation of rear dormer window, side roof lights and the
rendering and cladding to part of dwelling; 4 Shrublands, Polka Road for Mr C
Wells
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - LA/11/1331 - Installation of replacement front door;
Seafarers Cottage, 66 Freeman Street for Ms K Chandler
(Listed Building Alterations)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - NMA1/09/0528 - Non material-amendment request to
revise internal layout of barns 1- 5, covered parking for barns 1-3, re-position
roof lights and windows and demolition of outbuilding; Barns 1-7, Manor Farm
for Hectors Housing Ltd
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
WEYBOURNE - NMA2/10/1400 - Non-material amendment request for change of
finish to roof lantern; South Cottage, The Street for Mrs G Atkinson
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
WEYBOURNE - NMA1/11/0788 - Non-material amendment request for reduction
in length of extension and re-location of window; Gable End, The Street for Ms J
Van der Heiden
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
WIGHTON - PF/11/1270 - Conversion of barn to residential dwelling; Water Hall
Barn, High Street for Mr & Mrs Hopkins
(Full Planning Permission)
WIGHTON - LA/11/1271 - Alterations to barn to facilitate conversion to
residential dwelling; Water Hall Barn, High Street for Mr & Mrs Hopkins
(Listed Building Alterations)
Development Committee
42
12 January 2012
WOOD NORTON - PF/11/1288 - Erection of replacement extended porch; Chapel
Cottage, Rectory Road for Mr & Mrs Wright
(Householder application)
WORSTEAD - LA/11/1194 - Internal alterations kitchen/dining room; The Manor
House, Church Plain for Mr O'Connell
(Listed Building Alterations)
9.
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
BACONSTHORPE - NMA2/10/0972 - Non-material amendment request for
revised dormer roofs; Lokeside, Hall Lane for Mr B Dowman
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
CROMER - PF/11/0460 - Erection of three-storey dwelling; Land at Cadogan
Road for Mr Roberts
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTHREPPS - PF/11/1299 - Variation of condition 6 of planning ref: 07/0439 to
permit alternative parking for plot 3 and creation of vehicle access; Land at
Norwich Road, Cromer for SJD Enterprises
(Full Planning Permission)
TRIMINGHAM - AN/11/1168 - Continued display of advertisements; Sites at
Cromer Road, Sidestrand and Mundesley Road for Woodland Holiday Park
(Advertisement Non-Illuminated)
APPEALS SECTION
10.
NEW APPEALS
CROMER - PF/11/0613 - Erection of detached single-storey dwelling; Land rear
of 10 Park Road for Mr T Merchant
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
STIFFKEY - PF/11/0947 - Erection of two-storey extension and alterations to
existing single-storey wing; Warborough Place, Wells Road for Mr & Mrs Baker
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
STIFFKEY - LA/11/0948 - Internal alterations, alterations to existing single-storey
wing and erection of two-storey extension; Warborough Place, Wells Road for
Mr & Mrs Baker
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
11.
PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
None
Development Committee
43
12 January 2012
12.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
BLAKENEY - PF/10/1371 - Change of use of land and field shelter from
agricultural to D2 (leisure); Land at The Quay for Mr W Sankey
SUSTEAD - PF/11/0804 - Conversion of building to one unit of holiday
accommodation; Manor House Farm, New Road, Bessingham for Mr I Clark
13.
APPEAL DECISIONS
BODHAM - PF/11/0190 - Erection of agricultural storage building; Windrush
Farm, Hart Lane for Mr D Gay
APPEAL DECISION: ALLOWED
Development Committee
44
12 January 2012